The Lord Of The Rings: The Rings Of Power

**Brendan** · 06-09-22, 02:22 PM

There is so much inspirational LGBTQ+ entertainment.

It doesn't need to be added in Tolkien's world his vision wasn't about sexuality.

bespangeled I'm curious about your nephew's answer to the question: Who did he look up to in the books/movies?

What happened DeepBlueJoy

While you loved the trilogy in your original post, you neglected to mention the issues surrounding diversity.

What do you mean by the white lens? I believe that Tolkien did not mean to insult us or discriminate within the creation that he created.

But I think Tolkien created light vs dark in the symbolic meaning that evil is dark and good is bright. For example Doves vs Crows.

Spoiler:

Morgoth vs Fingolfin. Good vs Evil.

Originally posted by DeepBlueJoy View Post

Excellent question. I shall talk to my Tolkien scholar friend about this and hear what he says.

I noticed about this forum the majority of you guys always seem to have that friend.

So what does your Tolkien scholar friend think about the TV show, knowing the fact Amazon fired a Tolkien scholar?

Double Dutchess

I was lucky enough to get the full set of The Lord Of The Rings toys.

There were orcs, but they weren't slim, stylish, beautiful supermodels like your barbies.

Tolkien didn't describe the orcs as supermodels.

They were described as hideous, small, sallow-skinned, and squatty, with huge mouths and big noses.

And why do black people look up to orcs I am sorry I can't comprehend that. They should automatically know that's not a black person.

Black people are beautiful, not ugly or monstrous.

**vampmogs** · 06-09-22, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by KingofCretins View Post

Just trying to gently suggest that identity-essentialism in popular fiction is peripheral, marginal motivator and what people react to is quality.

It may be marginal for you but it's not something you've ever had to worry about. For people who have grown up absorbing media/imagery that in no way represented them it matters a great deal when they see themselves on screen. Hence me watching three seasons of a TV series I didn't particularly find "high quality" and otherwise wouldn't have watched but I did because I felt represented and I connected with it.

This guy does a pretty good job explaining why representation in media is important and how a lack of representation impacted him as an asian man growing up.

On the flip side, there's plenty of people on the other side of the fence who aren't motivated at all by quality and are instead arguing that a diverse cast automatically equates to a bad show. Complaining about diversity in the new LOTR series is also reminiscent of similar complaints that have cropped up in House of Dragon which Steve Toussaint dresses down pretty spectacularly;

“They are happy with a dragon flying,” he says, of fans’ willingness to accept the fantastical elements of the show’s world. “They're happy with white hair and violet-colored eyes, but a rich Black guy? That's beyond the pale.”

**DeepBlueJoy** · 06-09-22, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by KingofCretins View Post

How many shows would you watch that were just garbage, because you felt they were more representative than an available alternative?

I have not, but i cringed as a lot of my friends watched horrible black sitcoms with nasty caricatures because they were DESPERATE to see people like them.

Many GLBTQ people in earlier decades read awful novels where the gay couple always came to a bad end (as required by censors) because that was the only game in town.

This is why we fight so hard to be included in mainstream content. We dont like those nasty, demeaning ghettoisations.

**DeepBlueJoy** · 06-09-22, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by Brendan View Post

There is so much inspirational LGBTQ+ entertainment.

It doesn't need to be added in Tolkien's world his vision wasn't about sexuality.

bespangeled I'm curious about your nephew's answer to the question: Who did he look up to in the books/movies?

What happened DeepBlueJoy

While you loved the trilogy in your original post, you neglected to mention the issues surrounding diversity.

What do you mean by the white lens? I believe that Tolkien did not mean to insult us or discriminate within the creation that he created.

But I think Tolkien created light vs dark in the symbolic meaning that evil is dark and good is bright. For example Doves vs Crows.

Spoiler:

Morgoth vs Fingolfin. Good vs Evil.

I noticed about this forum the majority of you guys always seem to have that friend.

So what does your Tolkien scholar friend think about the TV show, knowing the fact Amazon fired a Tolkien scholar?

Double Dutchess

I was lucky enough to get the full set of The Lord Of The Rings toys.

There were orcs, but they weren't slim, stylish, beautiful supermodels like your barbies.

Tolkien didn't describe the orcs as supermodels.

They were described as hideous, small, sallow-skinned, and squatty, with huge mouths and big noses.

And why do black people look up to orcs I am sorry I can't comprehend that. They should automatically know that's not a black person.

Black people are beautiful, not ugly or monstrous.

No, black folks are not montrous, but so often it is only the monsters that resemble us.

young people dont comprehend race, but kids, particularly non-neurotypical kids do see colour. If the only coloured beings are monsters, they will INTERNALIZE that message. How can they not? It is not a desire to identify with monsters, it is an absolute human NEED to BELONG. It is why people join cults and gangs. That is a maladaptation, but it is REAL and tragic. If you shut us out, kids dont ask why, they just come to believe black is bad, black is monster whether they are black or white.

Even in Buffy, probably two of the best demons were Sweet and Mr. Trick. They were both played by fabulous actors. They were a delight to watch.

I don't identify with them as monsters, but they were strong, powerful, smart, funny AND black. I was delighted to watch them 'represent' even though i wish some strong positive black, Asian or Latino characters had also been cast in significant roles.

As for the original trilogy, it was what it was. The essay is needed because people are upset about the idea of diversifying going forward. Funny, even back when the trilogy came out people complained that women's roles were artificially enlarged!

Uhm what do you mean "the majority of you guys seem to have that friend?"

**Double Dutchess** · 06-09-22, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by Brendan View Post

Double Dutchess

I was lucky enough to get the full set of The Lord Of The Rings toys.

Nice! I never had any of those, but then they didn't exist yet at the time I was still playing with barbies.

There were orcs, but they weren't slim, stylish, beautiful supermodels like your barbies.

Tolkien didn't describe the orcs as supermodels.

They were described as hideous, small, sallow-skinned, and squatty, with huge mouths and big noses.

Sure, but I was talking only about the human people of Middle-Earth. Making my barbies look like Orcs would have taken a lot of effort! And frankly, the thought of doing that never even occurred to me.

The Haradrim were not described as hideous in the books (though also not as supermodels!) but there is a description of the darkest skinned among them (from "Far Harad") that sounds pretty racist. It is cited in the Wikipedia article I linked to, specifically in this section:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harad#...al_%22Other%22

I suppose it could be argued that Tolkien was only describing the racist perspective of the Men of Gondor (who were not used to seeing any black people and of course were pretty biased because the Haradrim were their enemies) and that he did not necessarily agree with this perspective. But it is not great.

ETA: correction, the quote was cited in the section right above that one.

**Brendan** · 06-09-22, 06:05 PM

DeepBlueJoy It's just my opinion, but I don't believe it.

My personal view is that white heroic inspirational characters can still inspire black children.

I still can't imagine a black child looking up to a monster since it is supposed to be a monster and not a representation of a black human being.

The colour black can also represent darkness, such as the night sky.

The movies portrayed women's power so much better than in the TV show. That's just my opinion.

Originally posted by DeepBlueJoy View Post

Uhm what do you mean "the majority of you guys seem to have that friend?"

It's just a coincidence that you have a Tolkien scholar as a friend. And TriBel has a white friend with a black west Indian wife and bespangeled has a black nephew.

Hopefully, you're being honest.

Despite this, Joss was not implying or saying black people are demons or evil; it just so happens that they are black.

Double Dutchess But I thought Tolkein wrote this.

"He was glad that he could not see the dead face. He wondered what the man's name was and where he came from; and if he was really evil of heart, or what lies or threats had led him on the long march from his home."

I generally believe that they are not all evil.

Your white barbies could have been a suitable representation of a white evil character in the books.

**American Aurora** · 06-09-22, 08:29 PM

I think this thread has gone a bit sideways in terms of talking about the issues that surround the new LOTR TV series - some really powerful arguments regarding representation, but I want to just steer it back to the actual show for a moment.

Brendan, I was genuinely curious as to why you didn't like the show. I didn't think it was about any casting decisions, but more about the writing. I figured that it was because it mucked about with a lot of the lore.

Galadriel isn't banned from Valinor because she was power-hungry (as in the original) but because she's seeking vengeance for her dead brother. Of course, the original reasons are bit sketchy because Tolkien never really dramatized them.

During the Darkening of Valinor and the rebellion ofFëanor, Galadriel was the only woman of the Noldor who stood among the rising princes. She swore no oath, but the words ofFëanor concerning Middle-earth kindled a desire in her heart, as she was eager to see those wide unguarded lands and rule a realm of her own.

I can see that the new 'dramatic' background/origin story is a bit wobbly - but I'm guessing that they're setting her up for a huge fall. The series is set in the Second Age - unlike the Third Age and its tale of heroism, it's obviously going to be a very Catholic tale of fallen states. The slow fall and corruption of almost everyone in Middle Earth - elves, dwarves, men, halflings, ents - and the crumbling of all their personal ideals in a kind of 'Middle Earth Breaking Bad' - is most likely the primary goal of the series. We'll see a lot of death and destruction and the proto-hobbits as refugees who have to find a 'new' land of their own - much like Aeneas leading the rag-tag band from Troy after its destruction.

My guess would be that having Galadriel already corrupted and power-hungry from the start would give the character no where to go - they're most likely going with the idea that her desire for revenge will destroy her from within and end up allowing Sauron to rise - whereas if she had gone to the Undying Lands, he never might have appeared again. Whatever their plan, I can tell that she's going to screw up royally as her need to avenge her brother's death becomes a mania that pushes her to create the Great Rings, allowing Sauron to take over.

This is why all the accusations of Mary Sue don't quite work for me since in my mind (I could be wrong), they're actually setting her up for a great fall due to her own blind spots and inner motives that are less than pure - hence the 'test' in the Third Age when the One Ring comes within her scope.

The rest of the cast - Gil-Galad, Elrond, Celebrimbor, Durin, the Númenóreans and others are all going to make some very bad choices as well that also enable Sauron to rise - whether through greed, power-grasping, cowardice or anger/vengeance, I think the entire series is most likely (with some exceptions) going to be Paradise Lost rather than Paradise Regained.

But I can see how that does screw around with the original intent - which can be annoying if you're someone who really wants to see what Tolkien wrote.

With regards to the racial and sexual issues, I've done an enormous amount of research over the past few decades on medieval England due to an ongoing project - probably read over 10,000 books and articles - and when looking at both history and mythology, there's a lot more diversity than the average person knows. Starting from the Silk Road before Roman times and moving into the displacement of peoples by the Roman and Byzantine Empires, the rise of Islam and the forced migration of other peoples, Europe was awash with a lot of Middle Eastern and African refugees. One can also look at the rise of scholasticism in Baghdad and Southern Spain, the creation of the Christian Kingdom Outremer in the Middle East in the 1090s which saw a huge amount of former Crusaders intermarrying with the local women (and bringing their children back home with them to Europe) and the Jewish and Muslim doctors, philosophers and scientists that various Kings, Dukes and Bishops brought back with them because of their value in the royal court and the burgeoning Universities.

There was also a wave of romances based on various cultures from the Middle East and Africa - especially those perceived as Christian. Many Chivalric romances featured noble 'Saracens' and 'Blackamoors' who were Christians and noble Knights - even the great General Saladin was romanticized and admired by most of Europe despite being Kurdish and Muslim. In particular, the Normans were fascinated by other cultures and employed people of all races within their entourage. Johanna, the Queen of Sicily, valued her Ethiopian General above all other men.

I think that Tolkien (who was not an outward racist and wrote multiple letters condemning Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa) was more fascinated by linguistics - especially of the late Dark Ages/early Middle Ages - and took from various mythologies to create his world, most of them societies that were Old English/Nordic/Germanic in nature with a dash of French/Celtic/Other thrown in.

Would he have disapproved of various races in his work? Possibly. Then again, he was a medievalist who would have been well-read and schooled in the tradition of chivalric romances which featured numerous knights/warriors of different races and genders - then again, there is the racist Jewish/Christian tradition of Ham, which stated that as a punishment for violating God's prohibitions on the Arc, Ham was turned into a Black man - which explained Africans. But it's a very complicated legacy with both positive and negative depictions of people of color throughout Christendom from the fall of Rome to the rise of Early Modern Europe.

We do find darker-skinned people in Tolkien - most of them by the Third Age compromised by Sauron controlling the Southern parts of Middle Earth. The Harfoots are also said to be a darker-skinned people - what this means is in the eye of the beholder.

But to be honest, the fury on the internet over all of this is puzzling to me - throughout medieval history and myth, we get tons of mixed race characters and there's no reason that even if you believe elves as a race are naturally light-skinned that they didn't have sex with people of various shades and have children. Tolkien talks about this in his notes, saying that elves and men together create 'strange fates' but it's implied there are many more than the main four we hear about. In fact, Tolkien talks about how elves love sex but have zero interest in their children. Could dwarves have sex with men? Hard to say, but there's also no reason that there couldn't be Black or Asian dwarves since racial characteristics are caused by climate and environment and there might be some dwarves who moved from the South.

We know that genetic evolution is a thing in Tolkien because the Hobbits clearly change and evolve - so why not other races as well? We know for a fact that Men and Orcs (who are really elves) bred and there are implications that Hobbits could breed with men and elves. I personally think the whole thing made Tolkien squeamish (hence the total lack of sex in the trilogy).

So the idea of men, elves, dwarves and others as different races in the TV show doesn't bother me at all even from a purist point of view in terms of lore - I just figure that genetics and interbreeding does its thing as in real life. To be honest, nothing seemed like virtue signaling to me or forcing something into the lore that wasn't possible. My parents watched the first two episodes with me and their one comment on race was my mom blurting out, "Oh, my God, is that Lenny Henry? I LOVE him!"

As a side note....

Interestingly, there was far less racism in the Dark and Early Middle Ages than later because people of color were a novelty and somewhat unusual. They fulfilled a lot of European fantasies of how Christianity ennobled all people - even in far away places like Ethiopia where a Christian Kingdom was thriving. The European shift in thought towards 'race' as a imperative against interracial marriage (rather than religion or class) only began after the King of Portugal wanted an 'in' with the Muslim slave trade in 1453 and needed a good reason to enslave the native peoples. He commissioned Gomes de Zurara to write about Africans as if they were a different species who were inherently inferior to Europeans, lacked souls and were akin to animals. The same happened with the 'negros da terra' in the Americas - everyone not of European background thrown into the same group of lesser peoples. So the modern idea of race was created primarily to enable slavery without a lot of pesky Christian guilt getting in the way. It was about this time that the idea that Black peoples and others did not descend from Adam, but from the inhuman wife of Cain became prevalent. And thus it went even more downhill...

**Brendan** · 06-09-22, 08:49 PM

To be honest, I'm not in the mood to talk about the TV show right now, so maybe I'll return to you American Aurora in a week.

**bespangeled** · 06-09-22, 11:32 PM

bespangeled I'm curious about your nephew's answer to the question: Who did he look up to in the books/movies?

He's autistic, which means he doesn't look beyond the obvious. Inferences and extrapolations are not in his tool box. In elementary school he objected to being told he was Black, as his skin is clearly brown and not black. So at the movies he saw the Uru Kai as the character he was most like, and therefore it was him that he identified with. We talked about this because i was alarmed that my nephew was taking this message from the movies. He loves the books - all the books - but I don't know that there is a specific character he looks up to. He still identifies with the only character that he sees as physically resembling him.

My personal view is that white heroic inspirational characters can still inspire black children.

Any character can inspire. Can you identify with them is the question. How many Black women do you personally identify with? How many do you look at see yourself? How many have you found so personally compelling that you researched and even wrote about because they were in some key way an expression of who you are?

You know what line I identify with more than any other in Buffy? "Still Jewish, people. Not everyone worships Santa" It's a throwaway quip to most people. To me it is a glimpse of my reality for at least two months out of every year. How many Jewish characters do you see on tv who are not unpleasant caricatures - let alone Jewish mothers or grandmothers? Willow is one of very few.

It's just a coincidence that you have a Tolkien scholar as a friend. And TriBel has a white friend with a black west Indian wife and bespangeled has a black nephew.

Hopefully, you're being honest.

Trust me, this discussion really isn't worth lying about. I don't expect to win anything. Maybe we will understand each other better, maybe not.

Your white barbies could have been a suitable representation of a white evil character in the books.

It is hard not to become defensive sometimes. I've had the same problem - sometimes still do.

For me it was the gradual realization that the Black members of my family - and there are several - really do face some crucial differences in their daily reality. This isn't something I created, but ignoring it just perpetuates it. I have a ton of shit in my life - repeated back surgeries, my lungs no longer work for no apparent reason, money issues. But my skin color is not one of the issues I have to deal with.

When I let someone know that I am Jewish, I am always slightly uncomfortable waiting for their response. I've been told I will burn in hell for all eternity many times. I have been called a kike and a Christ killer, been physically attacked and been ostracized. I am revealing that I am suddenly other and the response is a crapshoot. The thing is that I have the option of simply not talking about it. They don't have that option. So I can personally identify with that aspect, and the mental exhaustion that comes with it. Most of the people I love are not Jewish, but that doesn't change the fact that sometimes I just want to hang out with other Jews and let all that fall away for a while.

That where representation comes in. That feeling of seeing others like you who are just people, good and bad, takes you from being other, and brings you into the story. It's not about not being inspired by white Christian men - there are some amazing people in that group who do inspire me. It's about being part of the story, the narrative. It's about no longer being told that my being unable to fully identify with a man is somehow a fault of my imagination and abilities. I love LOTR, and I can believe in creatures that don't exist - I don't understand why believing in dwarves is any harder when their skin color is darker than mine. Is race really the hill you think that Tolkien would want to die on?

**DeepBlueJoy** · 07-09-22, 02:22 AM

I am a geek. It is not coincidence that i have a a Tolkien scholar as a friend. I am 60 and i have acquired many geek friends and associates with various areas of expertise over DECADES.

I have friends and associates of various classes, races, religions, national origins - and with many interests. So yes, if i need to, i can call on engineers, architects, writers both fiction and non fiction. Gun experts. naval experts. My military scholar friend sadly died of COVID last November.

I was raised Christian, my dad was a Jew as are many close friends. My best friend in high school was Muslim and several good friends were Hindu. I can call on many of these people if i have questions about just about ANYTHING. Oh and i am interested in lots of things too - expert in some of those. Art, science, building and fixing things and medicine.
Yes it is true. I am not making any of this up. Just for the record. It is quite insulting for you to suggest i need to lie to win any argument. I dont.

**Anchovy** · 07-09-22, 05:19 AM

I didn't read everything in this thread, so maybe it's repetitive.

I haven't watched the show yet, I will though. What I didn't like in the trailer is really superficial stuff and it mostly boils down to: but it looked different in the movies!!! (mostly the hairstyles)

LotR is my favourite movie of all time, I don't even compare any other movie with it, it's like: there on the top is LotR and then, miles after miles, normal movies get ranked. The movies are made with such care, with so much love an passion, I don't care about anything else, like misrepresentation. There aren't many women in the movie, but even now, after years of critisizing books, shows and movies for weird represenation of women or underrepresentation, I still absolutely don't care, that it's basically just Arwen, Galadriel and Eowyn. I just live the movies too much to care.
Also, I don't read misogyny in Tolkiens books, either - I think he's rather progressive for his timeline

He likes women and it gets really obvious, if an author doesn't like women. Try being German and having to read f****** Goethe all the time.
Also, as a woman, I'm used to not being in books and movies and shows. I've learned to switch identification since I was little. You have to if you are a woman, a POC and/or gay. (I'd actually throw classism in it, too, since it's ususally ignored)
So that means I enjoy books and movies and shows, that are well-made AND give me an anchor to positively identify as a woman. I'd prefer a movie without women, that are well-made, but a movie with a ridiculous portayal of women will never make it high up in my list of favourites. And that's a lot. There is a trend, that's as lazy in portraying women as in the years before: every woman is super cool, can do everything men can do and can do it better, is witty and beautiful and blablabla, but that's not woke, that's bad storytelling, like it's been bad storytelling when women used to be stupid, pretty, weak, simpering morons and there are so much more of these compared to the "woke" trope of the perfect modern woman. There are millions of movies, that are absolutely unwatchable!!! (Try watching "Goldfish" - I used to find it so funny, when I was around 8. I re-watched it a few years ago with my mother and my father and after a while we just sat there, in silence, very uncomfortable.)
I'm sure there is an unholy number of movies you can't watch, if you're black. And many movies, where you just...compromise if you love movies and the movie is great. Like LotR. Still it doesn't change the fact, that being gifted with an A) quality movie, that B) actually does represent you, has to be the winner

About sexual orientation: I think you can read it either way. I prefer to read it as asexual love. There's too much classist hero-worship from Sam toward Frodo in it for me to like the idea of Sam/Frodo. I think Merry and Pippin are a couple

but it's so...irrelevant to the story, I don't care. It's a love story either way. Everybody loves everybody and is really open about it, I adore that. It shows a vulnerabilty, that's quite rare for this genre of hyper-masculine adventure story. Just really brave, soft boys all around

Fazit: I'm looking forward to watching it, my love for the source material comes first, always, if it's well-made than I'll like it. I don't care about anything else. But otoh I plan to be really bitchy, if it's not done faithfully

**TriBel** · 07-09-22, 09:14 AM

I'm late to this party. I couldn't watch it before because the lads watched it on my login and Amazon decided I didn't want to watch Ep1 and sent me straight to Ep 2. However - it's sorted and I'm in now.

Context: LotR is not my favourite film but I've watched it several times and I enjoyed it. I was a Tolkien geek years ago but I left it behind. And I can't be a purist in anything because my memory isn't good enough.

It looks great. I probably spoiled the effect by watching on my laptop rather than my big-screen TV but a) it's habit and b) I prefer it because it feels more intimate (I'll come back to this). In terms of representation, it wasn't jarring (for me). Initially, Sandman's gender/race swaps threw me but within minutes I'd grown into the characters. I didn't see anything here that alienated me or felt "odd" but, to re-emphasise, I'm not a purist.

I liked the Harfoots. I felt nothing for the working-class "Men" and the upper-class Elves irritated me. The dwarves - I liked Durin's wife and started to warm towards him. But, this is where, as a UK viewer, I began to have problems. The Harfoots are Irish; The Men are English; the Dwarves are Scottish: and it's drawing (IMO, quite relentlessly) on national stereotypes. I'm not saying much more because of spoilers but I will say that for its size the UK has a big range of accents and your ear attunes to them. Here - nothing - no variation. A homogenised mass. I didn't get this from the film.

American Aurora

"Oh, my God, is that Lenny Henry? I LOVE him!"

He's not popular with the right in the UK because he's been vocal about under-representation/white privilege and I think that may have been reflected in some UK reviews (TBH, he can be very preachy). As it is, if I hadn't known he was in it I wouldn't have recognised him immediately. He was very good - but that - combined with the above - leads to my second problem. I didn't recognise anyone other than Henry. There was no one I could hook into. I'm having to use Sandman as my point of reference because it's the last fantasy show I watched and in Sandman I could think "Dance is good as Burgess; Thewlis is even better as John". Because I had that hook I could individualize the characters. At the moment, the important figures are emerging from the background but performance-wise I'm a bit underwhelmed. I lie - I really liked the Harfoot girls but I'm pretty sure that's because my brain has decided "Derry Girls with Cork/Dublin brogues". It could be that this is deliberate and in keeping with the idea of unlikely heroes so I'm trying not to be over-critical. At the moment, it doesn't feel intimate and I don't feel immersed in it but I'll give it a chance.

**Brendan** · 07-09-22, 12:14 PM

Maybe I was a little defensive. Stoney I'm getting the impression that they think I'm being racist here and I'm not ready for them to think I'm being homophobic. Because I'm certainly NOT!